I 


I  — 

%MITCH 


£_U   Ig    £ 

^AHvaan-^    ^ftwvwiH 


<WNIVE1%       ^l 

tl  c*T3    t/ 


<mjDNV-S01^ 

-QrtE-UNIVERy/A 
% 


If 

?^ 

%- 
%, 

^ 


5tfMJNIVER%       ^lOS-ANCEl^ 
^ 


II 


I  Fv2| 

...Is 


II 


&  Is' 


i  irr    I 


.-UBKARY6JC, 


;OF-CAIIFO)?^      ^OF-CAllFOff^ 


/£          ^.OF-CAll 

k  2 

I 


«Al-UBRARYQr 

iJUffl 

§(c/AiS  $ 


.^ 


1-UBRARY0/ 


'\ 


IRRIGATION  DISTRICTS  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 


is,   Frank 


J3CL&  Lfiffl  UBBAB3C 


By 


FRANK  ADAMS 

Office  of  Public  Roads  and  Rural  Engineering 
1  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  Berkeley,  California 


PAPER  PRESENTED  BEFORE  THE  SECOND  PAN. AMERICAN 

SCIENTIFIC  CONGRESS,  WASHINGTON,  U.  S.  A. 

DECEMBER  27,  1915— JANUARY  8,  1916 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1917 


IRRIGATION  DISTRICTS  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

By   FRANK   ADAMS, 

Office  of  Public  Koadts  and  Rural  Engineering,   United  titatex  Department  of 
Agriculture,  Berkeley,  California. 

Barring  several  earlier  special  and  incomplete  irrigation  district  acts,  the 
district  form  of  irrigation  organization  has  been  in  use  in  the  western  United 
States  since  1887.  In  that  year  the  Legislature  of  California  embodied  in  the 
so-called  Wright  Act  the  first  comprehensive  plan  to  be  adopted  in  this  country 
authorizing  communities  to  bond  and  tax  themselves  for  irrigation  purposes. 
For  six  years  following  the  passage  of  the  Wright  law  there  was  great  activity 
in  the  organization  of  irrigation  districts  in  California,  49  having  been  carried 
through  the  organization  stage  during  that  period,  of  which,  unfortunately,  but 
few  of  even  the  worthy  ones  survived.  Within  another  eight  years  6  other 
Western  States  enacted  laws  almost  identical  with  the  Wright  Act,  and  during 
the  past  15  years  8  more  have  placed  the  general  principles  of  the  original 
Wright  Act  on  their  statute  books.  At  this  time  something  over  125  irrigation 
districts  are  in  operation  in  the  States  of  Nebraska,  New  Mexico,  Texas,  Colo- 
rado, Wyoming,  Montana,  Idaho,  Utah,  Washington,  Oregon,  and  California, 
of  which  the  larger  number  are  in  Colorado.  Idaho,  Nebraska,  California,  and 
Montana,  in  the  order  named.  The  smallest  district  operating  contains  about 
500  acres,  and  the  largest  about  175,000  acres. 

NATURE  OF   AN    IRRIGATION    DISTRICT. 

Aii  irrigation  district  under  the  laws  of  the  Western  States  is  an  area 
segregated  for  irrigation  purposes  whose  boundaries  are  defined  by  the  county 
supervisors  or  commissioners  on  petition  of  a  certain  number  of  the  land- 
owners therein,  and  whose  organization  is  finally  authorized  by  the  affir- 
mative vote  of  a  certain  prescribed  proportion  of  the  electors  possessing 
certain  prescribed  qualifications.  When  duly  organized  according  to  law, 
such  a  district  possesses  the  right  to  acquire  or  construct  and  operate  nec- 
essary irrigation  works,  including  the  right  of  condemnation,  and  to  raise 
money  therefor  by  the  issuance  of  bonds  or  the  levy  of  assessments,  or  both, 
against  the  real  property  embraced.  In  other  words,  an  irrigation  district 
as  understood  in  the  United  States  is  a  quasi  public  municipality  having  the 
right  to  issue  bonds  and  levy  assessments  for  irrigation  purposes  and  to 
own  and  operate  irrigation  works  necessary  or  desirable  for  the  irrigation 
of  the  land  included  within  the  district  boundaries. 

The  irrigation  district  laws  of  the  15  Western  States  that  have  authorized 
this  form  of  irrigation  organization  differ  considerably  in  detail,  and  in  some 
cases  in  principle,  more  essentially  in  matters  relating  to  organization,  quali- 
tir-ations  of  electors,  issuance  of  bonds,  levying  of  assessments,  and  public 

*189<>-3   -17 


2  PROCEEDINGS   SECOND  PAN   AMERICAN   SCIENTIFIC   CONGRESS. 

control.  In  general  it  might  be  said  that,  although  extensive  irrigation  dis- 
trict development  has  already  occurred,  none  of  the  15  district  laws  that 
have  been  enacted  is  yet  fully  settled. 

In  order  to  present  concretely  the  essential  features  of  irrigation  district 
organization  and  management  in  the  Western  States  the  following  brief 
outline  of  procedure  in  California  is  offered,  but  with  the  statement  that  the 
California  law  has  been  further 'developed  than  has  the  law  of  any  of  the 
other  Western  States: 

OUTLINE  OF  PBOCEDUBE  IN   THE  ORGANIZATION   AND   MANAGEMENT  OF   AN    IRRIGATION 
DISTRICT    IN    CALIFORNIA. 

Organization. —  (a)  Petition  for  organization  of  district  presented  to  county 
supervisors  by  a  majority  of  the  landowners  in  proposed  district  representing 
a  majority  in  value  of  the  lands  included.  Copy  of  petition  tiled  with  State 
engineer.  Lands  included  in  a  district  must  be  susceptible  to  irrigation  from 
a  common  source  or  sources,  except  that  towns  and  cities  may  be  included  and 
be  subject  to  assessment  for  district  purposes. 

(b)  Investigation  and  report  by  State  engineer.     If  report  of  State  engineer 
is  adverse,  plans  must  be  modified,  unless  three-fourths  of  landowners  petition 
sui>ervisors  to  proceed  according  to  original  plan. 

(c)  Final   action  by  supervisors  and  election  on  organization.     Two-thirds 
vote  required  to  carry  election. 

Construction and  issuance  of  bonds. —  (a)  Plans  and  estimates  for  irrigation 
works  made  by  a  competent  irrigation  engineer  and  referred  to  State  engineer. 

(b)  Final  determination  by  board  of  directors  of  the  district  on  the  plans  and 
estimates  and  circulation  of  petition  for  bond  issue,  which  must  be  signed  by 
a   majority  of  the  owners,   representing  a  majority  in  value  of  the  lauds  in 
district. 

(c)  Election  on  bond  issue.    Majority  vote  required  to  carry. 

(d)  Investigation  and  report  on  bond  issue  by  State  engineer,  State  attorney 
general,  and  State  superintendent  of  banks.     If  their  report  is  favorable,  bonds 
become  legal  investment  for  banks,  trust  and  insurance  companies,  trust  and 
State  school  funds,  etc.,  and  legal  security  for  deposit  of  public  money,  etc. 

(e)  Bonds  sold   and  contracts  let,   or  directors   proceed   with  construction. 
During   construction    secretary    forwards   progress   reports   of   work   to    State 
engineer. 

(/)  Bonds  bear  interest  not  exceeding  6  per  cent  and  are  payable  from  the 
twenty-first  to  the  fortieth  years  or  earlier.  Must  be  advertised  and  sold  to 
highest  bidder;  i.  e.,  can  not  be  exchanged  for  work. 

Assessments.— These  levied  on  an  ad  valorem  basis,  with  improvements  ex- 
empted. Special  assessments  for  maintenance  and  operation  must  be  approved 
by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  electors,  assessments  for  completion  of  works  by  a 
majority  vote.  No  vote  is  required  on  assessments  for  bond  principal  and 
interest  or  to  meet  payments  due  under  lease  or  contract  or  any  obligation 
reduced  to  judgment.  On  default  by  district  officers,  county  officers  act,  and  in 
case  of  their  default  district  attorneys  and  the  attorney  general  must  compel 
performance. 

Electors. — Electors  under  the  general  election  laws  of  the  State  may  vote  at 
all  irrigation  district  elections. 

Mnntiacnient. — This  is  in  the  hands  of  a  board  of  three  or  five  directors  chosen 
at  general  elections  held  biennially.  An  assessor,  a  collector,  and  a  treasurer 
are  also  elected  and  a  secretary  is  appointed  by  the  board  of  directors.  The  di- 
rectors may  be  elected  by  divisions  or  at  large,  but  must  represent  separate  divi- 
sions and  reside  therein.  The  directors  have  full  authority  to  employ  engineers, 
superintendents,  and  other  help  and  to  perform  all  acts  necessary  to  the  conduct 
of  the  business  of  their  district,  and  necessary  to  the  operation  and  maintenance 
of  the  irrigation  works,  {Deluding  provision  for  drainage.  They  are  required 
to  establish  equitable  rules  and  regulations  for  the  distribution  of  the  water 
of  the  district.  Water  must  be  distributed  ratably  in  accordance  with  assess- 
ments paid.  A  petition  of  a  majority  of  the  landowners  in  a  district,  represent- 
ing a  majority  in  value  of  the  lands  included,  must  be  filed  with  the  board  of 
diroftors  before  the  directors  may  purchase  or  lease  property  for  the  district 
costing  in  excess  of  $10,000. 


CONSERVATION   OF   NATURAL  -RESOURCES.  3 

EARLY   EXPEDIENCES   OF   IRRIGATION    DISTRICTS    AND   PRESENT    STATUS    OF    IRRIGATION 
DISTRICT  MOVEMENT. 

Wliile,  as  stated  above,  14  of  the  Western  States  followed  California  in  adopt- 
ing the  irrigation-district  principle,  early  irrigation-district  operations  in  the 
United  States  were  very  unsatisfactory.  Of  the  original  49  California  districts, 
24  disorganized  or  were  abandoned  almost  immediately  after  organization  and 
without  any  real  activity  whatever.  Of  the  remaining  25  but  8  are  operating 
in  1915,  and  of  these  8  not  more  than  5  have  attained  anything  of  the  suc- 
cess originally  contemplated.  The  original  Wright  Act  proved  to  be  altogether 
too  loosely  drawn  to  prevent  unwise  and  speculative  ventures,  and  when  the 
widespread  industrial  panic  of  the  early  nineties  overtook  the  country,  calamity 
was  inevitable.  To  some  extent  there  had  been  dishonesty,  but  to  a  larger 
extent  failures  were  due  to  excessive  optimism,  inexperience,  and  incompetence. 
At  any  rate,  the  results  under  the  original  Wright  Act  were  such  that  none  of 
the  other  States  cared  to  risk  a  repetition  of  the  California  failures  and  practi- 
cally no  irrigation-district  activity  was  undertaken  by  them  for  more  than  a 
decade.  Even  in  California  new  irrigation-district  activity  ceased  entirely  for 
over  10  years. 

In  the  meantime,  however,  the  Wright  Act  of  1887  was  repealed  and  a  revised 
act  passed  which  corrected  the  most  essential  faults  and  supplied  the  most  essen- 
tial deficiencies  of  the  former  statute.  With  the  experience  of  California  to 
guide  them,, most  of  the  other  States  gradually  revised  their  district  laws,  and 
in  the  decade,  1900-1910,  a  new  start  in  irrigation-district  organization  was 
launched.  In  this  new  movement  Idaho,  Nebraska,  and  Colorado  led.  The  latter 
State,  however,  entirely  failed  to  profit  by  the  earlier  experiences  of  California, 
and  under  an  altogether  inadequate  law  has  within  the  past  decade  passed 
through  an  experience  as  disastrous  as  that  of  California  under  the  old  Wright 
hiw  of  1JSS7.  Of  over  50  districts  organized  in  Colorado  in  the  last  10  years  but 
relatively  few  have  proven  successful  and  many  never  should  have  been  formed. 
In  Idaho,  Nebraska,  and  California,  however,  irrigation  districts  organized  or 
reorganized  during  the  same  period  have  almost  all  been  relatively  successful, 
and  some  have  been  eminently  so.  Taking  the  history  of  irrigation  districts  in 
the  United  States  as  a  whole,  therefore,  and  with  due  regard  to  the  failure  of 
unworthy  and  speculative  projects,  the  measure  of  success  that  has  been  at- 
tained by  the  worthy  and  feasible  farmers'  organizations  of  this  character  is 
exceedingly  creditable,  and  in  spite  of  the  need  for  further  revising  most  of  the 
district  laws  of  the  Western  States  the  district  form  of  organization  is  thor- 
oughly established  in  western  North  America.  In  this  connection  it  is  inter- 
esting to  note  that  the  Canadian  Provinces  of  British  Columbia  and  Alberta 
have  within  the  past  two  years  enacted  irrigation  district  statutes  based  on 
those  of  the  15  Western  American  States  above  referred  to.  It  is  now  even 
proposed  to  reorganize  irrigation  projects  of  the  United  States  Reclamation 
Service  into  irrigation  districts  rather  than  to  continue  the  special  form  of 
tvnter-users'  associations  that  was  put  into  effect  when  construction  under  the 
reclamation  act  began. 

SOME  COMPARISONS  OF  THE  STATE  IRRIGATION  DISTRICT  LAWS. 

As  already  indicated,  the  irrigation  district  laws  of  the  various  Western 
States  differ  quite  considerably.  It  seems  desirable  to  outline  briefly  some  of 
the  more  important  differences,  comment  being  based  on  the  laws  as  revised 
down  to  1915: 


4  PROCEEDINGS   SECOND   PAN   AMERICAN    SCIENTIFIC   CONGRESS. 

Organisation. — The  original  Wright  Act  of  California  was  passed  in  a  spirit 
of  revolt  against  the  obstruction  of  the  bonanza  landowners  and  the  riparian 
proprietors  of  California,  and  after  a  long  and  bitter,  and  finally  a  successful, 
fight  to  gain  control  of  legislative  machinery.  As  a  result  majorities  of  free- 
holders were  given  the  power  to  initiate  irrigation-district  organizations,  entirely 
regardless  of  whether  they  owned  in  the  aggregate  much  or  little  of  the  land 
on  which  the  financial  burdens  to  be  incurred  would  fall.  Many  districts  were 
organized  by  majorities  of  owners  in  which  the  property  sentiment  was  over- 
whelmingly against  organization.  The  real  need  of  the  times  was  a  law  that 
would  permit  development  to  be  undertaken  at  the  instance  of  a  majority  of 
the  substantial  interests  involved,  and  that  would  require  all  landowners,  and 
all  of  those  to  be  benefited  either  directly  or  indirectly,  to  bear  their  just  burden 
of  that  development.  Such  temperate  legislation  as  that,  however,  was  hardly 
to  be  expected  under  the  stress  of  the  day,  but  when  it  came  to  redrafting 
the  Wright  Act  in  the  light  of  an  experience  extending  over  a  decade  the 
futility  of  minority  rule  was  recognized.  Consequently  the  California  statute 
was  amended  to  require  on  the  organization  petition  not  a  mere  majority  of 
the  landowners,  or  less,  as  formerly  but  a  majority  of  the  landowners  repre- 
senting a  majority  in  value  of  the  lands  included.  This  principle  has  been  ac- 
cepted in  the  recently  enacted  statutes  of  Texas  and  British  Columbia.  In 
Utah,  Montana,  New  Mexico,  and  Alberta  the  majority  of  owners  must  repre- 
sent a  majority  in  acreage,  and  in  Nevada  and  Idaho  it  must  represent  one- 
fourth  of  it.  Oregon,  Washington,  Arizona,  and  Wyoming  still  require  only  a 
majority,  with  an  alternative  of  50  in  the  first-named  two.  Nebraska  and 
Oklahoma  require  petitioners  to  be  residents  of  the  State,  but  not  of  the  pro- 
posed district,  although  they  must  each  own  30  acres  in  it  or  hold  a  five-year 
leasehold  in  40  acres.  The  Kansas  law  requires  three-fifths  of  the  resident 
landowners.  In  Alberta,  Canada,  owners  signing  an  organization  petition  must 
be  21  years  of  age  and  be  residents  within  any  unirrigated  tract  in  the  proposed 
district  or  within  5  miles  of  it.  In  Colorado  the  organization  petition  is  suf- 
ficient if  It  contain  the  signatures  of  a  majority  of  the  landowners,  whether 
resident  or  nonresident,  owning  in  the  aggregate  a  majority  of  the  area  in 
such  district. 

If  any  one  fact  was  fully  demonstrated  by  the  early  irrigation  district  fail- 
ures, it  would  seem  to  be  the  fact  that  a  public  investigation  of  feasibility  should 
precede  organization.  Still  of  the  15  Western  States  of  America  having  irri- 
gation district  laws  California,  Idaho,  Wyoming,  Nebraska,  and  Oklahoma 
stand  alone  in  requiring  a  preliminary  report  by  the  State  engineer.  British  Co- 
lumbia, Canada,  gives  to  its  minister  of  lands  discretionary  authority  to  make  a 
thorough  investigation  of  each  proposed  district  and  to  report  on  the  feasibility, 
practicability,  and  probable  cost,  and  organization  must  be  approved  by  the 
board  of  investigation.  Texas  requires  that  feasibility  shall  be  considered  by 
the  county  commissioners  court,  which  is  given  authority  to  refuse  organiza- 
tion of  a  district  if  it  would  not  be  feasible  or  practicable,  would  not  be  a 
public  benefit,  is  not  needed,  or  would  not  be  a  public  utility. 

Issuance  of  bonds. — The  earlier  provisions  regarding  the  issuance  of  bonds 
left  the  calling  of  bond  elections  optional  with  boards  of  directors  and  merely 
required  that  they  should  estimate  and  determine  the  amount  of  money  neces- 
sary. No  provision  was  made  for  thorough  investigations  regarding  feasibility 
or  regarding  plans  and  specifications  for  construction.  This  absence  of  any 
essential  prerequisites  to  the  calling  of  bond  elections  or  the  issuance  of  bonds 
resulted  in  gross  abuse,  and  in  many  cases  large  bond  issues  were  voted  with- 
out any  clear  conception  as  to  where  water  was  to  be  obtained  or  as  to  the 


CONSERVATION    OF    NATURAL  RESOURCES.  5 

character  and  cost  of  works  necessary  to  bring  it  to  the  land.  The  amended 
California  act  of  1897  assumed  to  strike  at  the  root  of  the  evil  growing  out 
of  the  former  loose  practice  by  providing  that  not  only  should  a  majority  of 
owners,  representing  a  majority  in  value  of  the  land,  be  required  to  propose 
an  irrigation  district,  but  that  a  petition  signed  by  similar  majorities  should 
be  submitted  before  a  bond  election  could  be  called.  Even  then,  however,  the 
need  for  adequate  engineering  investigations  was  overlooked.  When  the  irri- 
gation district  law  of  Idaho  was  revised,  however,  this  need  was  taken  into 
consideration  and  a  provision  inserted  that  all  surveys,  examinations,  maps, 
plans,  and  estimates  requisite  to  ascertaining  the  cost  of  any  proposed  con- 
struction work  should  be  prepared  by  a  competent  irrigation  engineer  and  sub- 
mitted for  report  to  the  State  engineer.  The  practice  in  this  regard  first 
adopted  by  Idaho  is  now  followed  in  more  or  less  degree  in  Oregon,  Wyoming, 
Nebraska,  New  Mexico,  California,  and  Oklahoma,  the  last  named  being  the 
latest  to  adopt  this  very  desirable  amendment.  Such  a  provision  was  formerly 
contained  in  the  Nevada  law,  but  has  since  been  eliminated. 

California  retains  the  requirement  for  a  petition  by  a  majority  of  owners 
representing  a  majority  in  value  of  the  lands  included ;  and  in  Montana  a  peti- 
tion is  necessary,  but  it  need  represent  only  a  majority  in  acreage  rather  than  a 
majority  in  value.  In  Kansas  no  preliminary  examinations  are  specified,  but  a 
petition  is  necessary  from  three-fifths  of  the  resident  landowners.  In  Texas 
surveys  and  plans  must  be  made  by  the  engineer  of  the  district  and  the  assess- 
ment roll  completed  and  filed  before  a  bond  election  can  be  called.  In  British 
Columbia  the  board  of  investigation  must  approve  plans  and  estimates.  In 
Arizona  after  the  board  has  adopted  a  general  plan  of  operation,  an  examina- 
tion and  certified  report  is  made  by  a  competent  engineer.  In  Alberta 
surveys  and  estimates  must  be  made  by  a  qualified  engineer,  the  assess- 
ment roll  must  be  completed,  a  showing  must  be  made  that  the  proposed  works 
will  not  cost  over  $25  per  acre  or  involve  an  annual  maintenance  and  administra- 
tion cost  exceeding  $1.50  per  acre,  and  finally  the  by-law  providing  for  the  loan 
must  be  approved  by  the  minister  of  public  works.  In  Washington,  Utah, 
and  Colorado  no  preliminary  investigations  are  required,  and  the  estimate 
is  made  wholly  by  the  board  of  directors.  In  Montana  no  election  is  held 
on  bond  issues,  but  the  plans  must  be  prepared  by  a  competent  engineer 
and  the  amount  of  money  necessary  to  be  raised  determined  by  the  board  of 
directors.  The  Montana  law  requires,  however,  that  the  signatures  to  the 
petition  must  be  verified  by  affidavit.  In  Wyoming  the  holding  of  a  water-right 
permit  from  the  State  engineer  is  a  further  requirement. 

Absence  of  adequate  control  over  the  disposal  of  the  bonds  once  voted  was  a 
striking  feature  of  the  earlier  irrigation-district  legislation.  In  California, 
especially,  there  was  much  irregularity,  some  of  it  undoubtedly  fraudulent,  and 
numerous  were  the  ways  that  were  tried  to  circumvent  the  law  as  construed  by 
the  courts,  some  of  them  both  amusing  and  ingenious.  The  settled  policy  came 
to  be  that  bonds  could  not  be  traded  for  work  or  sold  other  than  for  cash,  but 
there  is  now  considerable  variation  in  the  practice  followed  in  the  several  States. 
In  California  bonds  must  be  advertised  and  sold  to  the  highest  bidder,  but  in 
practice  the  bidder  has  usually,  with  «  few  recent  notable  exceptions,  been  the 
contractor's  financial  backer.  The  original  requirements  that  bonds  should  not 
be  sold  for  less  than  par  has  been  eliminated  by  California,  but  the  State  now 
provides  for  an  investigation  and  report  on  the  physical  and  financial  feasibility 
of  irrigation-district  projects  and  on  the  water  rights  held,  by  the  State  engineer, 
the  attorney  general,  and  the  superintendent  of  banks/  This  investigation, 
although  not  compulsory,  ordinarily  precedes  the  offering  of  the  bonds  for  sale. 


6  PROCEEDINGS  SECOND  PAN  AMEBICAN   SCIENTIFIC   CONGKESS. 

In  Oregon,  Washington,  Utah,  Arizona,  Colorado,  New  Mexico,  Texas,  Idaho, 
Montana,  Wyoming,  and  British  Columbia  bonds  may  be  used  in  the  purchase 
of  works  or  rights  or  for  construction,  and  in  Nevada,  Nebraska,  and  Oklahoma 
they  may  be  exchanged  for  works  and  rights  but  not  for  construction.  In 
Nevada,  Idaho,  Kansas,  and  Texas  bonds  must  bring  par,  but  in  Oregon, 
Washington,  Utah,  Arizona,  Montana,  Wyoming,  Nebraska,  Colorado,  Okla- 
homa, and  New  Mexico  they  can  not  be  sold  below  limits  prescribed  by  law, 
which  vary  from  85  to  95,  it  being  provided  in  some  cases  that  if  exchanged 
directly  for  works,  water  rights,  construction,  etc.,  the  bonds  must  go  at  par. 
In  Texas,  court  confirmation  of  the  validity  of  the  bonds,  a  favorable  report  by 
the  attorney  general  of  the  State  on  their  legality,  and  registration  by  the  comp- 
troller of  accounts  are  all  necessary  prerequisites.  In  British  Columbia  both 
the  form  and  price  of  debentures  must  be  approved  by  the  board  of  investiga- 
tion, and  with  the  approval  of  the  board  of  investigation  the  trustees  of  districts 
may  mortgage  debentures  remaining  unsold.  The  trustees  of  districts  in  British 
Columbia  are  also  allowed  to  use  unsold  bonds  for  the  payment  of  any  legal 
indebtedness.  The  usual  interest  rate  on  bonds  as  specilied  by  the  laws  is 
not  exceeding  6  per  cent.  Seven  per  cent  is  allowed  in  Idaho,  and  in  the 
Canadian  Provinces  it  is  enough  that  it  be  specified  in  the  by-law  covering 
the  issuance. 

Assessments.— One  of  the  most  controverted  points  in  connection  with  irri- 
gation districts  has  been  the  basis  of  levying  assessments.  California  started 
with  the  ad  valorem  basis,  including  improvements,  but  by  recent  amendment 
improvements  have  been  eliminated.  Nebraska  now  follows  the  California 
law  as  to  both  the  ad  valorem  basis  and  exemption  of  improvements  and  Okla- 
homa has  adopted  the  same  provision,  and  Texas  uses  the  ad  valorem  basis  for 
collecting  the  principal  and  interest  of  bonds,  but  provides  that  for  maintenance 
one-third  of  the  assessments  raised  shall  be  prorated  on  an  acreage  basis 
against  all  land  to  which  water  can  be  furnished,  the  remaining  two-thirds  to 
be  paid  by  the  actual  water  users.  Idaho  leads  in  making  assessments  in  ac- 
cordance with  an  apportionment  of  benefits  and  has  been  followed  in  more  or 
less  degree  by  Washington  and  Nevada.  In  British  Columbia  the  ad  valorem 
basis  is  used  when  benefits  are  substantially  uniform,  with  improvements 
exempted,  otherwise  assessments  are  levied  according  to  a  classification,  de- 
pending upon  benefits. 

In  Oregon,  Utah,  Arizona,  Montana,  WyomUag,  Colorado,  New  Mexico,  and 
Alberta  assessments  are  levied  at  a  uniform  rate  per  acre,  with  the  proviso 
usually  added  that  no  lands  shall  be  assessed  that  are  not  irrigable  from  the 
source  of  water  adopted. 

IBBIGATION    DISTRICT   FINANCE. 

With  the  exception  of  during  the  earliest  years  of  operation  under  the  orig- 
inal Wright  Act  arid  during  a  brief  period  in  the  decade  1900  to  1910,  the  mar- 
keting of  irrigation  district  bonds  has  always  been  a  serious  problem,  as  it  is 
to-day.  Yet,  considering  the  history  of  irrigation  districts  in  the  United  States, 
this  can  not  be  considered  as  surprising.  The  many  mistakes  and  failures 
under  the  original  Wright  Act  left  an  indelible  impression  on  investors,  and  the 
use  of  the  district  form  of  organization  in  a  speculative  way  in  several  of  the 
States  during  the  decade  1900  to  1910  created  a  new  feeling  of  antagonism. 
This  bad  history,  coupled  with  the  frequent  examples  of  bad  management  on 
the  part  of  boards  of  directors,  has  seriously  handicapped  this  form  of  enter- 
prise. The  entire  West,  however,  seems  now  inclined  to  place  irrigation  dis- 


CONSERVATION    OF   NATURAL  RESOURCES.  7 

tricts  on  an  entirely  sound  basis.  It  is  now  fully  realized  that  the  day  for 
irrigation  district  wildcatting  is  definitely  and  finally  past;  also  that  for  the 
best  results  the  States  themselves  must  honestly  and  effectively  exercise  super- 
vision and  control  both  in  the  organization  of  the  districts  and  in  their 
management.  Further  than  this,  eastern  and  many  western  financiers  seem  to 
be  insisting  that  offerings  of  irrigation-district  securities  shall  be  confined  to 
districts  that  have  passed  the  construction  stage  and  are  successfully  operating. 
These  financiers  take  the  view  that  enterprises  not  yet  through  the  construction 
stage  must  be  classed  as  speculative  and  must  be  financed  by  other  means  than 
(•securities  offered  to  the  investing  public.  Only  when  enterprises  are  established 
and  no  longer  speculative,  they  say,  should  the  public  be  asked  to  furnish  money 
at  the  interest  rates  common  to  investment  securities. 

In  some  cases  it  has  been  proposed  either  that  the  States  themselves  should 
lend  their  credit  to  districts  during  the  construction  period,  or  that  construc- 
tion should  be  financed  on  a  basis  that  will  allow  the  usual  promoters'  profit, 
leaving  the  matter  of  permanent  financing  to  be  taken  up  when  success  has 
been  attained.  It  is  very  clear  that  those  who  are  guiding  irrigation  district 
policies  in  the  West  are  coming  to  be  in  much  closer  touch  than  formerly  with 
the  eastern  financial  centers  that  are  called  upon  to  furnish  the  money,  and 
that  we  may  look  forward  in  the  not  distant  future  to  such  integrity  of  irriga- 
tion district  organization  as  will  give  to  irrigation  district  securities  a  stand- 
ing that  the  security  back  of  worthy  projects  fully  justifies.  Before  this 
condition  can  be  reached,  however,  it  is  certain  that  various  States  must  look 
carefully  to  their  irrigation  district  laws  and  not  only  provide  safeguards 
against  unworthy  projects  but  take  such  part  in  the  supervision  of  irriga- 
tion districts  that  the  internal  management  of  these  farmers'  enterprises  will 
be  of  such  a  nature  as  to  entitle  them  to  public  credit.  In  addition  to  these 
changes,  it  is  not  altogether  improbable  that  some  form  of  State  aid  in  financing 
irrigation  districts  will  be  put  into  effect  in  some  of  the  more  progressive 
western  Commonwealths.  Owing  to  the  fact  that  construction  is  now  far  in 
advance  of  settlement  in  irrigation  districts  as  well  as  on  other  western 
projects,  however,  nothing  is  likely  to  be  done  in  the  immediate  future  to- 
stimulate  greatly  new  district  development. 

o 


CD 
O 


5  f- 

I   § 


^•WTOS^. 


IDS- 


flUDKV-SOV 


US?       ^Aavaani^ 


II 


5*         ^ 

g   I 
3 


, 


MIFtffifc       AOF-ttUFORfc 

Q|  K5\l 


>»Aiivaain^ 


^IOSAI«1&^ 

kt 

^  _ 
"%MAlNrf 


.5WE  UNIVERSE 


1  I 

1  1 

s?    •£ 


?  ^ 


.5JK 


JQIE-DMVEH^.       ^U)SANCn% 


